Jump to content

Has NASA lost its way?


Ed Cesnalis

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 469
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This one is good for the living room art folks!

Climbers would want you to pull in tighter and highlight a single peak. This seems to give prominence to thunderbolt (toward the right) which in this collection of peaks, it certainly doesn't deserve.

Mike Koerner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

Winds were 20-30 I I needed 13,500 to get inside of Temple Craig where I could get a good look.  That's too close to the rotor zone on such a day.  I need under 10kts to fly there with little clearance, little available power and little room to maneuver.  I focused on what had sun light and a wide shot.  I had a wide lens and intended to get closer.  

 

Most guys I know focus on the V-notch and U-notch, not the peaks. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Make the most of this summer because it could be your last decent one: winter is coming as the planet enters the most devastating cooling period since the 65-year Maunder Minimum of the 17th and early 18th centuries. 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/12/winter-is-coming-warns-the-solar-physicist-the-alarmists-tried-to-silence/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was just reading an article this morning about space weather and how sun spots almost caused WWIII.  As someone who works with the agency, I can tell you NASA is still very much engaged in space exploration, albeit in a different way.  ISS is still humming along above your heads; commercial crew is progressing and will put the US back into launching its own crews into orbit, and SLS/Orion is making headway toward flying to cis-lunar space and beyond.  Doug G, I agree with your opinion that retiring shuttle was premature.  We had many of the crew risks mitigated, though vehicle aging was presenting some issues.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of our guys sends out lots of very entertaining and historical space-related e-mails; one of them described how, in the early days of our understanding and tracking of space weather, sunspot activity (and a solar flare) caused enough interference with our early warning radar systems that folks thought they were being jammed as part of an attack.  Forces were on the verge of being activated when a message was sent out to the commands that sunspot activity might cause electromagnetic interference. WWIII was stood down... 

 

Here's a link to the paper describing it.  It will expire sometime in the next 30 days: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016SW001423/pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As many of you know HF radio signals benefit from a greater number of sunspots since it causes the ionosphere to bend the radio signals. It means you get what was called "skip" in CB lingo. It allows worldwide radio communications. When the sunspot number is low the HF signals pass straight through the ionosphere.

Solar flares, on the other hand can cause serious disruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Why do they publish this drivel? Hottest on record as long as you through out 99.9999% of the earth's history ( those records only count when the warmists want them to.)  Then they have to through out the more reliable satellite data because it doesn't agree. Then they have to go to Japan to build a consensus that it was hotter by how much???? wait for it....  did we get another 0.1C?  no, we got a prediction that it could be hotter.

 

Notice that when it comes to breaking these records there is no such thing as a margin of error?  How do you detect 10% of a degree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to read about Sun spots and their relation (or lack of) to the infrared output of the sun. Sunspots run on an eleven year (average) cycle. Britebart is not a particularly good source of information.

 

The Breitbart article is referring to this: 

 

Valentina Zharkova, a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in the United Kingdom, used a new model of the sun's solar cycle, which is the periodic change in solar radiation, sunspots and other solar activity over a span of 11 years, to predict that "solar activity will fall by 60 percent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645."

 

Zharkova said that a series of solar phenomena will lead to a "Maunder Minimum," which refers to the seven decades, from 1645 to 1715, when the sun's surface ceased its heat-releasing magnetic storms and coincided with the Little Ice Age, a period of chillier temperatures, from around 1550 to 1850 in Europe, North America and Asia, according to NASA.

 

btw, Brietbart does not originate the science, they base their articles on the science.  Try this site:  http://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html

 

CNET is a gadget review site: "CNET is the world's leader in tech product reviews, news, prices, videos, forums, how-tos."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the same article linked to above:

"However, many scientists are not convinced. Georg Feulner, the deputy chair of the Earth system analysis research domain at the Potsdam Institute on Climate Change Research, has studied the effect a solar minimum might have on Earth's climate. His research has shown that temperature drops correlated to a less intense sun would be insignificant compared with anthropogenic global warmingaccording to the Washington Post.  (NOTE; This was what he told the Washington Post.)

Regarding the Maunder Minimum predicted by Zharkova, Feulner said, "The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times by the year 2030," Feulner told the Post. Furthermore, this isn't the first time research has predicted waning heat from the sun, to which experts also said that man-made global warming won't be trumped."

There's always a debate about any scientific or engineering conclusion.  It's part of the healthy process that tries to get at the truth.  We had a saying in the Mission Engineering Room where I worked during shuttle that: "In God we trust; all others bring data".  This was an attempt to get emotions and personal biases out of the arguments.  Just because you don't like or even understand what the data's showing you doesn't do a thing to change reality.  Of course, the problem is that we humans always have to interpret the data and we often have an incomplete picture.  In that case, it's easy to jump to a conclusion, especially when it reinforces our preconceived notions.  The trick is to be open to what the truth might be and to keep searching, be willing to change your mind as you get smarter on where the truth lies, and be willing to keep digging.  A big part of weighing actions is asking ourselves "what if we're wrong?" and then doing what we can to avoid the really "bad days".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with your sentiment, Andy.   I even come from the same organization ( minor buddies with Howard Law, for instance ) but up at Ames RC.  However!  Human beings cling to their closely held beliefs no matter what the evidence.     Obviously, this has been good for evolution.  Or, rather, our evolution at the time.  The chances of changing someone else's closely-held beliefs are extremely small.   But it's hard to let it slide despite the futility.   If you can change anyone's "scientific method" with a forum posting, that would be a miracle.    Actually, upon reflection, that would be a dangerous miracle.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human beings cling to their closely held beliefs no matter what the evidence.   

 

There is no evidence under-pinning a catastrophic effect from what the Earth's climate is doing right now....NONE.    The "many scientists are not convinced" applies to the case AGAINST man-made global warming.    And when you see ANYONE say "all scientists agree" you have your first clue about who is scamming and who is being objective about actual scientific evidence.

 

As noted over and over...the first false premise from "warmers" is their persistent and ignorant assertion that science is done by consensus...that is a laughably false idea and one that reflects an ignorance of what science is and how it is done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi pointpergame,

 

I worked with Howard and know him from my days working in ascent abort and flight safety roles.  Haven't seen him in quite some time and don't even know if he's still at JSC.

 

I don't have any illusions about changing the minds of folks who operate in a "to hell with the facts" mode.  Despite how knowledgeable they may make themselves appear, in a true scientific or engineering forum, they wouldn't last ten seconds. I've been with NASA a long time and I've never seen the type of conspiracy mindset they try to ascribe to it.  I'm proud to have been and still be a part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...